Re: Performance difference between tuning reducer num and partition table

2013-06-30 Thread Felix . 徐
Hi Dean, Thanks for your reply. If I don't set the number of reducers in the 1st run , the number of reducers will be much smaller and the performance will be worse. The total output file size is about 200MB, I see that many reduce output files are empty, only 10 of them have data. Another

Re: Performance difference between tuning reducer num and partition table

2013-06-29 Thread Dean Wampler
What happens if you don't set the number of reducers in the 1st run? How many reducers are executed. If it's a much smaller number, the extra overhead could matter. Another clue is the size of the files the first run produced, i.e., do you have 30 small (much less than a block size) files? On

Performance difference between tuning reducer num and partition table

2013-06-28 Thread Felix . 徐
Hi all, Here is the scenario, suppose I have 2 tables A and B, I would like to perform a simple join on them, We can do it like this: INSERT OVERWRITE TABLE C SELECT FROM A JOIN B on A.id=B.id In order to speed up this query since table A and B have lots of data, another approach is :

Re: Performance difference between tuning reducer num and partition table

2013-06-28 Thread Felix . 徐
Hi Stephen, My query is actually more complex , hive will generate 2 mapreduces, in the first solution , it runs 17 mappers / 30 reducers and 10 mappers / 30 reducers (reducer num is set manually) in the second solution , it runs 6 mappers / 1 reducer and 4 mappers / 1 reducers for each partition